|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 7:41AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
As the limitation is pretty severe, I think a damage reduction of 1-6 is pretty reasonable. As it won't scale with your HP or the more dangerous attacks at higher level, I doubt it will be a viable enough benefit as things scale.
Essentiall, its more likely to be "the game of recovering alcoholics" than "the one where you should be drunk all the time." In addition, I'm pretty okay with that.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:08PM
#32
|
|
|
Also, do we really want D&D Next to be known as "the one where you should be drunkall the time?"
Yes, yes, we do.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:34PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
The thing is to people keep talking about how their entire party is just going to remain drunk all the time, or get drunk before going into a situation where they're most likely going to fight. And they think they've come across this awesome benefit for a little damage reduction with not much penalty. But seriously, I can't think of a DM who would just let them do that without more repercussions. It doesn't matter if the rules say intoxicated only gives disadvantage on rolls and dam reduction, a smart DM who sees his players trying to take advantage of this is going to penalize them. Make it so they can't charge because they're too uncoordinated drunk, or else when they're sober they're going to still suffer the disadvantage or something worse because of hangovers, or any number of things. Or even just telling the group he's no longer going to allow the damage reduction if the party is just going to drink all the time. Or any number of things. And if the DM isn't smart enough to figure out how ridiculous it is for the party to be drunk all or nearly all the time without real consequence then he deserves what he gets I guess.
But this really isn't a big deal, not even a huge advantage or anything.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:38PM
#34
|
|
|
I like the parts of the condition EXCEPT for the damage reduction. It just doesn't seem logical.
It's not unbalanced, just silly.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:45PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2008
|
I don't think this will be abused (since disadvantage is a huge drawback) except by wizards only casting save spells. Maybe add to it that all creatures have advantage when saving against spells you cast.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:58PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
I like the parts of the condition EXCEPT for the damage reduction. It just doesn't seem logical.
It's not unbalanced, just silly.
It actually does make sense. If you've been drunk you really don't feel pain sometimes, you're kinda numb to it. That's why drunk people do stupid crap and get stab and whatnot and don't feel it. That's basically what the DR is for. They're still getting hit but they don't feel all the pain so it affects them less.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 3:59PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
I don't think this will be abused (since disadvantage is a huge drawback) except by wizards only casting save spells. Maybe add to it that all creatures have advantage when saving against spells you cast.
Actually DV isn't that huge of a drawback. Yeah you take the lesser of the two but it still gives you twice the chance to hit. And if you roll an 18 and a 16 you're still most likely going to be hitting even if forced to take the 16. So it isn't a big deal, but at the same time I think adding more negatives to it really isn't necessary either.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 4:35PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
The silliness is all of the fun with this condition.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 5:15PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2004
|
I don't think this will be abused (since disadvantage is a huge drawback) except by wizards only casting save spells. Maybe add to it that all creatures have advantage when saving against spells you cast.
I asked Mike on Twitter "would it make sense that someone's save would have advantage against an intoxicated wizard's spell?" and he replied "Seems reasonable."
"I don't want to fight dragons." - Hiccup
If dragons are to be invovled, I much prefer to play as a dragon, dragon rider, dragonslayer-slayer, dragonfriend, or anything else *but* a dragonslayer.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 25, 2012 - 5:36PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2008
|
This is questionable. Since HP are an abstraction (takes into account luck, skill, toughness), being drunk should probably make combat skill worse, ergo, more likely to lose HP. That 1st level fighter that does 1d8 damage with a sword should be more likely to kill the drunk guy than less likely to kill the drunk guy. Perhaps that could be ameliorated by the property "attacks against the creature have advantage" along with the d6 damage reduction to take into account the "Liquid Courage" factor. In other words, not only are your attacks less likely to hit, but you're more likely to get hit, even if it won't hurt you quite as much. I still think d6 damage reduction seems a bit silly in this regard, especially for low level campaigns.
|
|
|
